The Labour Government

hilts said:
Sticking it to those who murder and starve millions, sticking it to them?


Bwaaaaahhhhhh

Kinnell

Holy shit that's hilarious.

Starmer he's like Liam Neeson in slow motion after a focus meeting and after much delaying he's about to pounce any month now, watch out shits about to get real. Alert the church elders.
Click to expand...
I think you’ve got Starmer wrong. He’s no Liam Neeson, he’s a boring fucker who is trying to pull us back from the doom loop that we are all experiencing.

As a country, we are currently fucked and whoever the government we have, big questions have to be asked on where all the money has gone and how we use it going forward,

Fifteen years of austerity has left us in a position where we have reduced assets, increased debt, and long term infrastructure issues that need to be sorted.

Yet your cheap personal jibes.

Love ya man, hopefully Corbyn and co can sort all these issues.
 
BigJoe#1 said:
This has to be up there with some of the most ill thought through ploitical statements of all time.

"We [the UK Government] will recognise the state of Palestine in September if the Israeli's don't declare a ceasefire"

WTF is that trying to achieve?

1. to piss the Palestinians off by not recognising their State if a ceasefire is declared?

2. to piss the Israeli's off by imposing a ceasefire whilst they still have their hostages still being held.

The have achieved imposing a brilliant no one wins goal for the region!!

Well done Keir. Note this was done as soon as Trump left the UK. Have we ever had such a weak and gutless leader? H e makes Liz Truss look Churchillian.
Click to expand...

France, UK and now Canada with Australia likely to follow.

www.bbc.co.uk

Canada follows France and UK with plan to recognise Palestinian state

Mark Carney says it depends on Palestinian democratic reforms, while Donald Trump says it could stymie a US-Canada trade deal.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
 
BlueHammer85 said:
Are they all now weak gutless leaders Big Joe you plank ?
Click to expand...

What do you make of the letter sent to the Attorney General by the group of cross bench peers, questioning the legality of any move to recognise the state of Palestine? In particular how any such move appears in breach of the Montevideo Convention, not least in relation to the need for any newly recognised state to have an effective, identifiable government, capable of maintaining relations with other countries?

There is one very notable paragraph in the letter where the peers highlight Starmer’s previous comments on the need to avoid a ‘pick and mix’ attitude to international law, and how the law should not be manipulated for reasons of political expedience.

Certainly Starmer seemed very keen to adhere to international law when paying Mauritius billions of pounds of rent for a slither of land never actually owned by Mauritius. But his and his mate Hermer’s knowledge of international law appears a little less certain when engaging in gesture politics to appease his restless backbenchers on the non-state of Palestine.

Perhaps Starmer’s legal credentials will be restored in the coming weeks with another screeching U-turn approaching.
 
Brewster's millions said:
What do you make of the letter sent to the Attorney General by the group of cross bench peers, questioning the legality of any move to recognise the state of Palestine? In particular how any such move appears in breach of the Montevideo Convention, not least in relation to the need for any newly recognised state to have an effective, identifiable government, capable of maintaining relations with other countries?

There is one very notable paragraph in the letter where the peers highlight Starmer’s previous comments on the need to avoid a ‘pick and mix’ attitude to international law, and how the law should not be manipulated for reasons of political expedience.

Certainly Starmer seemed very keen to adhere to international law when paying Mauritius billions of pounds of rent for a slither of land never actually owned by Mauritius. But his and his mate Hermer’s knowledge of international law appears a little less certain when engaging in gesture politics to appease his restless backbenchers on the non-state of Palestine.

Perhaps Starmer’s legal credentials will be restored in the coming weeks with another screeching U-turn approaching.
Click to expand...
Starmer hamstrung by International law - the irony :)
 
Brewster's millions said:
What do you make of the letter sent to the Attorney General by the group of cross bench peers, questioning the legality of any move to recognise the state of Palestine? In particular how any such move appears in breach of the Montevideo Convention, not least in relation to the need for any newly recognised state to have an effective, identifiable government, capable of maintaining relations with other countries?

There is one very notable paragraph in the letter where the peers highlight Starmer’s previous comments on the need to avoid a ‘pick and mix’ attitude to international law, and how the law should not be manipulated for reasons of political expedience.

Certainly Starmer seemed very keen to adhere to international law when paying Mauritius billions of pounds of rent for a slither of land never actually owned by Mauritius. But his and his mate Hermer’s knowledge of international law appears a little less certain when engaging in gesture politics to appease his restless backbenchers on the non-state of Palestine.

Perhaps Starmer’s legal credentials will be restored in the coming weeks with another screeching U-turn approaching.
Click to expand...

BBC reports

Part of the letter says: "Palestine does not meet the international law criteria for recognition of a state, namely, defined territory, a permanent population, an effective government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states.

"This is set out in the Montevideo Convention, has become part of customary law, and it would be unwise to depart from it at a time when international law is seen as fragile or, indeed, at any time."

From what I can see almost all of those could not be achieved BECAUSE of the Israeli blockade for decades. If we are going on to debate International Law we cannot do so in a vacuum. The fact that Israel has breached International Law on numerous occasions. Also consider that Israel is currently committing war crimes such as depriving people of food and water as a weapon of war, firing on civilians, razing whole blocks to the ground all of which are flagrant breaches of International Laws. Maybe those 40 signatories would also like to confirm Israel has been, is and will remain in breach of International Law too - they are mostly lawyers or have a legal background so I am sure they know.
 
Brewster's millions said:
What do you make of the letter sent to the Attorney General by the group of cross bench peers, questioning the legality of any move to recognise the state of Palestine? In particular how any such move appears in breach of the Montevideo Convention, not least in relation to the need for any newly recognised state to have an effective, identifiable government, capable of maintaining relations with other countries?

There is one very notable paragraph in the letter where the peers highlight Starmer’s previous comments on the need to avoid a ‘pick and mix’ attitude to international law, and how the law should not be manipulated for reasons of political expedience.

Certainly Starmer seemed very keen to adhere to international law when paying Mauritius billions of pounds of rent for a slither of land never actually owned by Mauritius. But his and his mate Hermer’s knowledge of international law appears a little less certain when engaging in gesture politics to appease his restless backbenchers on the non-state of Palestine.

Perhaps Starmer’s legal credentials will be restored in the coming weeks with another screeching U-turn approaching.
Click to expand...
Yeah, 'cos the Israeli government has not now, or never, broken international laws eh...
 
Brewster's millions said:
What do you make of the letter sent to the Attorney General by the group of cross bench peers, questioning the legality of any move to recognise the state of Palestine? In particular how any such move appears in breach of the Montevideo Convention, not least in relation to the need for any newly recognised state to have an effective, identifiable government, capable of maintaining relations with other countries?

There is one very notable paragraph in the letter where the peers highlight Starmer’s previous comments on the need to avoid a ‘pick and mix’ attitude to international law, and how the law should not be manipulated for reasons of political expedience.

Certainly Starmer seemed very keen to adhere to international law when paying Mauritius billions of pounds of rent for a slither of land never actually owned by Mauritius. But his and his mate Hermer’s knowledge of international law appears a little less certain when engaging in gesture politics to appease his restless backbenchers on the non-state of Palestine.

Perhaps Starmer’s legal credentials will be restored in the coming weeks with another screeching U-turn approaching.
Click to expand...

Would you rather we didn't recognize the state of Palestine ?
 
bluethrunthru said:
BBC reports

Part of the letter says: "Palestine does not meet the international law criteria for recognition of a state, namely, defined territory, a permanent population, an effective government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states.

"This is set out in the Montevideo Convention, has become part of customary law, and it would be unwise to depart from it at a time when international law is seen as fragile or, indeed, at any time."

From what I can see almost all of those could not be achieved BECAUSE of the Israeli blockade for decades. If we are going on to debate International Law we cannot do so in a vacuum. The fact that Israel has breached International Law on numerous occasions. Also consider that Israel is currently committing war crimes such as depriving people of food and water as a weapon of war, firing on civilians, razing whole blocks to the ground all of which are flagrant breaches of International Laws. Maybe those 40 signatories would also like to confirm Israel has been, is and will remain in breach of International Law too - they are mostly lawyers or have a legal background so I am sure they know.
Click to expand...
Does Lord Pannick know more about the law than you?
 
BlueHammer85 said:
Would you rather we didn't recognize the state of Palestine ?
Click to expand...

The UK shouldn’t be legitimising a territory controlled by a terrorist group, and unfortunately the UK’s document on recognising Palestine was so poorly written that no conditionality is being to Hamas ahead of this arbitrary September deadline. It’s frankly embarrassing how the government has behaved on this.
 
Brewster's millions said:
The UK shouldn’t be legitimising a territory controlled by a terrorist group, and unfortunately the UK’s document on recognising Palestine was so poorly written that no conditionality is being to Hamas ahead of this arbitrary September deadline. It’s frankly embarrassing how the government has behaved on this.
Click to expand...

And also the governments of 147 of the 193 member states of the United Nations right ?
 
On recognising Palestine.

If this is ever to be solved and the decent people in both countries finally get to live in peace then we need to be breaking this circle of violence. Everyone involved will have to deal with the people they hate, compromise will need to happen. By formally recognising Palestine the UK will be nailing it's colours to a two state solution. Which, I think, will piss off Hamas and the far right in Israel. So, on balance, not perfect but it is trying something different and it is supporting the compromise of a two state solution.

On the online safety act.

The internet is a brilliant invention and most of us love it HOWEVER it is very, very easy to end up in it's cesspit. So you have to balance personal freedom against the potential harm. Remember the safety belt in cars debate? Anything that takes away 'freedoms' needs to, quite rightly, be questioned but this seems to be purely about protecting children from entering the cesspit. Clearly a move to protect children and not a move to control debate.
 
Brewster's millions said:
The UK shouldn’t be legitimising a territory controlled by a terrorist group, and unfortunately the UK’s document on recognising Palestine was so poorly written that no conditionality is being to Hamas ahead of this arbitrary September deadline. It’s frankly embarrassing how the government has behaved on this.
Click to expand...
Did you miss this bit?

‘Our message to the terrorists of Hamas is unchanged and unequivocal … "They must immediately release all the hostages, sign up to a ceasefire, disarm and accept that they will play no part in the government of Gaza.’
 
Brewster's millions said:
The UK shouldn’t be legitimising a territory controlled by a terrorist group, and unfortunately the UK’s document on recognising Palestine was so poorly written that no conditionality is being to Hamas ahead of this arbitrary September deadline. It’s frankly embarrassing how the government has behaved on this.
Click to expand...
Aren't these conditions on Hamas? :

"Hamas are a terrorist organisation responsible for the October 7th atrocities. They must never be rewarded. We have been unequivocal in our condemnation of those evil attacks, and our support for the right of the State of Israel to self-defence. Hamas must immediately release all the hostages, sign up to an immediate ceasefire, accept that they will play no part in the government of Gaza, and commit to disarmament."
 
M18CTID said:
Did you miss this bit cunty bollocks?

‘Our message to the terrorists of Hamas is unchanged and unequivocal … "They must immediately release all the hostages, sign up to a ceasefire, disarm and accept that they will play no part in the government of Gaza.’
Click to expand...
You need to read it again, properly, and focus on the section where the conditionality around recognising Palestine is explicitly outlined. No mention of anything in relation to Hamas, not even in relation to the release of the hostages;

We are determined to protect the viability of the two-state solution, and so we will recognise the state of Palestine in September before UNGA;

unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza and commits to a long term sustainable peace, including through allowing the UN to restart without delay the supply of humanitarian support to the people of Gaza to end starvation, agreeing to a ceasefire, and making clear there will be no annexations in the West Bank.

To explain, simply, the UK government has already decided to recognise Palestine unless certain actions by the Israeli government are forthcoming. So unfortunately, for both yourself and the UK government, the statements around Hamas have been rendered irrelevant. Really very poorly written and yet so many on here fail to see it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top